Allahabad High Court
ASHOK KUMAR SINGHversusPARTH SARTHI SEN SHARMA, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (SECONDARY) EDUCATION AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The contempt application is dismissed as misconceived because no case for contempt exists.
Summary
The applicant, Ashok Kumar Singh, filed a contempt application after the High Court, on 30 October 2025, disposed of his writ petition with liberty to approach the concerned authority due to delay. The applicant alleged contempt, claiming the court’s order was not complied with. The court examined the record and found no basis for a contempt proceeding, noting that the respondent authority had decided the applicant’s claim on 5 May 2026 and communicated the decision to the applicant’s counsel. Consequently, the court held that the contempt application was misconceived and dismissed it. The order also recorded that the decision of the authority was placed on record.
Issues considered
- Whether a contempt of court application is maintainable against the respondent authority for alleged non‑compliance with the High Court’s order.
Subjects
- contempt
- writ petition
- delay
- High Court
- jurisdiction
- order compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3052 of 2026
Ashok Kumar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma, Additional Chief Secretary
(Secondary) Education And 2 Others .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : J.P.N. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. The writ Court on 30.10.2025 while disposing of Writ-A No. 16009 of
2025 passed the following order:-
" 1. Heard Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Jitendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his
grievance before the concerned respondent since at the outset, this Court
finds that this writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay."
2. From perusal of the order, I find that the Court had refused to interfere in
the matter directing the applicant to raise the grievance before authority
concerned.
3. No case for contempt is made out, at this stage.
4. The contempt application is misconceived and stands dismissed.
5. However, when the matter was dismissed, learned Standing Counsel has
placed before the Court the instructions so received by him. According to
instructions, the claim of the applicant has been decided on 05.05.2026, copy
of which is taken on record.
6. A copy of the decision taken by authority has been handed over to
applicant counsel by learned Standing Counsel, during court proceeding.
May 7, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…